William IV of Great Britain has a son.

William IV, like several of his brothers, raced to the alter upon the death of their niece, Princess Charlotte in 1817. Despite having 15 children, George II did not have any further legitimate grandchildren.

William was first in line and marriage Princess Adelaide, and would have a happy marriage and a surprisingly productive 7 year reign. They had two short lived daughters and three miscarriages.

What would happen if one of the miscarriages the couple had was a healthy son, say, around 1828?

William IV reigns from 1830 to 1837 after the death of his brother, George IV. Assuming he dies as he did OTL, what would the regency be like for the future William V?

The obvious would be to go to the next eldest surviving brother, the Duke Cumberland, whom was probably the most hated man in Britain, though William IV got along with him personally.

Indeed, it would not be out of realm of possibility that the British Public would believe Cumberland would attempt to poison his nephew to step closer to the throne (there were rumors that he plotted against Victoria in OTL).

If he did control the regency, how would the next 9 years have gone until the boy was in his majority?

How would the continued personal union of the United Kingdom and Hanover be received? Would this affect the Unification of Germany?
 
It is an interesting topic, not too knowledgable on it, but what do you think might be the changes?


For starters, no Victorian era. There would be a different monarch from 1837 to...whenever.

My specific question is how the regency would be handled. Would it automatically be claimed by the next surviving brother (Cumberland)?

Would Parliament flatly refuse this idea given his unpopularity?

When he got older, would he possibly be a match for his Cousin Victoria (based on my TL, she would be 7 or 8 years older) or would he go for a foreign princess?

This had been a big issue in OTL as many Britons feared that William III would die before his niece Victoria, ascended the throne. The "regency" would be wide open and many feared her mother and her secretary would be the power behind the throne.
 
For starters, no Victorian era. There would be a different monarch from 1837 to...whenever.

My specific question is how the regency would be handled. Would it automatically be claimed by the next surviving brother (Cumberland)?

Would Parliament flatly refuse this idea given his unpopularity?

When he got older, would he possibly be a match for his Cousin Victoria (based on my TL, she would be 7 or 8 years older) or would he go for a foreign princess?

This had been a big issue in OTL as many Britons feared that William III would die before his niece Victoria, ascended the throne. The "regency" would be wide open and many feared her mother and her secretary would be the power behind the throne.

Hmmm it seems that Parliament might well oppose Cumberland becoming regent then, and might suggest others. And I do think a foreign princess would be the order of the day
 
Interesting Characters which may be inserted into an ATL American Rev War

Accidently copied a new thread into this forum. Moving that to a new thread.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm it seems that Parliament might well oppose Cumberland becoming regent then, and might suggest others. And I do think a foreign princess would be the order of the day

I know that Victoria was considering (or told to consider) one of her cousins. But the fact she was female probably made at least some difference. A foreign princess appears standard in this Time Period for princes/kings.
 
Could the young prince (William V) not be made king in name with his mother acting as regent? Kingdom would become a more ceremonial affair with the real power lying with the prime minister, even after young William become of age, but that would only speed up events already underway and not really change things jn the long run.
 
Hmmm it seems that Parliament might well oppose Cumberland becoming regent then, and might suggest others. And I do think a foreign princess would be the order of the day

In OTL there was the Regency Act of 1830, which completely ignored Cumberland. It stated that if William IV died when Victoria was still minor, the Duchess of Kent (Vic's mother) would become the regent.
If William had a legitimate son or daughter then that person would become king or queen instead of Victoria, and its mother, Queen Adelaide, would be regent. (There was even a provision for the case that a child of William and Adelaide might be born in the months after William's death when Victoria had already become Queen. That newborn child would immediately replace Victoria, having the longest possible regency.)

In TTL, I think that bill is as indubitable as possible a proof that an alternate, but similar act will provide that Queen Dowager Adelaide would become Queen Regent for the 1828-born child, until the majority in 1846.

Aparently Adelaide was initially popular due to her piety, charity and personal modesty; but she very much favored the Tories and tried to influence her husband against political reform.

Since her opposition to reform seems to have come from conservative religiosity, I doubt that she will change her convictions out of political opportunism. So she might run into conflicts with parliament, but I am unsure how a Regency Act could be changed during the regency - the minor king cannot give royal assent to the bill that creates a different regent, and the current Queen Regent probably will not.

But in more detail: I see no reason that the 1837 triggered by the death of William IV will have a different outcome than in OTL: 385 seats for the Whigs, 273 for the Tories. Assume that the Queen Regent believes she cannot do her duty for her son and country by appointing Lord Melbourne as PM. Instead she offers the job to Sir Robert Peel - or even a more conservative Tory, like the Duke of Richmond. Who probably declines.

What now?

BTW, when looking up outspoken critics of the repeal of the corn laws, I found the name of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, namely Richard Plantagenet Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville. Who really sounds like a role in a Monty Python skit.
 
Could the young prince (William V) not be made king in name with his mother acting as regent?

Yes, this is most certqainly what would happen.


Kingdom would become a more ceremonial affair with the real power lying with the prime minister, even after young William become of age, but that would only speed up events already underway and not really change things jn the long run.

This I rather doubt. Adelaide does not seem to be the person who would willingly give up even an inch of the power her son should gain when turning 18.
 
Last edited:
Top